Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Reserving your entire army in 5th was a good way to hand your opponent an easy victory. Reserves have never been good, because they are a strategic concept, not a tactical one. In 40K, you want stuff shooting and drawing fire from turn 1. It also doesn't help that you can instagib your own unit when deep striking and you are basically stuck in place after you do it. It sucks and always has.

I cannot disagree more. I ran a null deployment IG army in 5th edition and not only was it amazingly effective, it was fun as hell.

It wasn't hot gak because it maximized the number of turns it spent shooting. It was hot gak because it minimized the opponent's opportunities to shoot and assault friendly units while maximizing the effectiveness of your shooting through location alone - it put you in the right place, at the right time, to do damage. It did, however, have the benefit of 3+ T2 reserve rolls and nearly half of the army was capable of outflanking or deep striking.


Now that they've boned full reserve armies, playing IG isn't nearly as much fun for me anymore to be honest.

I'm still doubtful, but it's really a moot point with the changes in 6th. Please reserve as much as you like and I'll have fun trying to table you every turn for the autowin.

More to the point, I think people just got used to the protection of the magic damage table from 5th. I hated AV 11 and AV 10 in 5th edition, and even though I frequently use mech, I welcome the HP system. This system does not make tanks useless at all. Only if you construct bad lists.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Tanks are pretty much useless here, but only because we have a Tau inflation (that I am a proud part of)

Im seriously considering starting Tau. I havent played since 3rd edition, and Ive always been a SM or CSM player...but I think i want something new this time.

Tau have made off like a bandit via 6th edition and its' attendant FAQs. So you should be pleased with that switch.

Notably, the pre-measuring distances is nice for all the ranged weapons, the overwatch is nice for all the ranged weapons (not so much for assault-ier armies, which against tau is practically everyone), Being able to add nightvision to just about any squad (which is very handy in 6th edition as there is much more potential nightfighting going on), and their vehicles are now sturdier than a land-raider due to the unbiquitous presence of distruption pods on all of them for practically nothing.

All in all i cannot think of a single thing they do worse in 6th than they did in 5th, and many new benefits to them across the board.

 Neorealist wrote:
Tau have made off like a bandit via 6th edition and its' attendant FAQs. So you should be pleased with that switch.

Notably, the pre-measuring distances is nice for all the ranged weapons, the overwatch is nice for all the ranged weapons (not so much for assault-ier armies, which against tau is practically everyone), Being able to add nightvision to just about any squad (which is very handy in 6th edition as there is much more potential nightfighting going on), and their vehicles are now sturdier than a land-raider due to the unbiquitous presence of distruption pods on all of them for practically nothing.

All in all i cannot think of a single thing they do worse in 6th than they did in 5th, and many new benefits to them across the board.

How about moving across the table to take and hold an objective?

Sure, pure shot out they got better, but that alone doesn't win missions.

-Matt

 Neorealist wrote:
Tau have made off like a bandit via 6th edition and its' attendant FAQs. So you should be pleased with that switch.

Notably, the pre-measuring distances is nice for all the ranged weapons, the overwatch is nice for all the ranged weapons (not so much for assault-ier armies, which against tau is practically everyone), Being able to add nightvision to just about any squad (which is very handy in 6th edition as there is much more potential nightfighting going on), and their vehicles are now sturdier than a land-raider due to the unbiquitous presence of distruption pods on all of them for practically nothing.

All in all i cannot think of a single thing they do worse in 6th than they did in 5th, and many new benefits to them across the board.

I saw that in another Dakka thread, where the OP showed what had improved, stayed the same or got worse. Almost nothing got worse, with a good number of things getting better.

Oh no, not the firewarrior argument again. Yes, Tau have issues storming entrenched troops. However, my friend has a Tau army and his plan A is just to table via shooting, making troops a non sequitur. It works surprisingly well; his opponent will actually be trying to claim objectives and he's just trying to reduce enemy models to zero from a safe distance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To attempt to stay on subject, Tau tanks with disruption pods are quite nice indeed. I just with the Devilfish had a little more variety of weapons available.

HawaiiMatt wrote:How about moving across the table to take and hold an objective?

Sure, pure shot out they got better, but that alone doesn't win missions.

-Matt

Actually it works surprisingly well, you should try it. As for how they claim objectives? Usually in my experience on the 5th turn in a devilfish that i can't seem to kill regardless of how much i shoot at it.

Small squads of troops that are just ballast essentially until that very turn. The rest of the resident tau players' army usually just does it's best to decimate anything that is a big threat to his minimal troop choices long before it can engage them via superior firepower.

And that is objective missions, on pure kill point missions he doesn't even have to do that, just stands off and cleans off anything that comes close, again through superior firepower.

Sure they suck in close combat. But you know what? most of the time you never get there...

i really dont notice anything on av13/14 vehicles getting nerfed. Theyre a pain in the butt to deal with at range. Since im orks, if i get close theyre dead due to Pklaw spams, problem is getting there.

AV10-12 just feels like a waste. Only reason i still run battlewagons is because with multiple BWs + some trukks you can hide that av12 side pretty easily for awhile.
Ive started hating trukks because its literally free first blood. I almost never have any terrain to hide them behind thats in the neutral zone (middle board) so its either camp on my side hoping hes dumb enough to come close or zoom across and hope he rolls bad.

I ran some Deffdreads last game just because i had some spare slots and not enough points to take anything else. Av12 got penned first time they got shot at and wrecked. I had them to guard my Lootas from deepstrikes - all they did was soak up some damage since they died instantly and it was only 6-8 shots firing at them with Str6-7 levels.

AV 10-12 still does it's job. Especially AV 12; it's the break point for lances.

Vaktathi wrote:And while basic guardsmen can't hurt them (at least without paying 1ppm), Veterans certainly can.

And what about all those other units in the game that can't take krak grenades (or for which it would be stupid to)? I used to see plenty of vehicles taken down with frag grenades and even stikkbombs.

Vaktathi wrote:Just because you can't outflank and assault from the board edge doesn't mean you'll never see tank assaults.

You won't see them if you don't see assault armies. If you've got people running foot assault hordes in 6th, then your opponents have much more serious problems.

Like how a basilisk is more durable than a russ when it can't be shot at (out of LOS), likewise all vehicles are more durable against assault when there's nothing to assault them.

Vaktathi wrote:Which, unless you have an embarked infantry unit with template weapons, isn't likely to do much of anything, especially as the tanks cannot overwatch.

Clearly you've never killed anything out of assault range with overwatch before.

Vaktathi wrote: Even rolling below average, a 10man squad with krak grenades will inflict enough HP damage to kill any 3HP rear AV10 tank without ever having to roll on a damage chart no matter how far it moved.

And those same 10 krak grenades would chump the hell out of the tank in 5th ed as well. 6th didn't significantly change the outcome.

Vaktathi wrote:It happened all the time in 5th ed, Not everything is a Starengine Fast Skimmer, a lot of time it was just the difference of moving 6" or 7". It's not like the game doesn't have Bikes, Cavalry, Jump Infantry, Flying creatures, etc, and average and max charge distances have increased with 6E.

vehicles of all types have always been faster than infantry. Clearly you've never tried to catch a skimmer in close combat either.

Meanwhile, things like jump infantry could always catch them. Once again, 6th ed hasn't added anything new.

And this, I think, is what's really going on here. It's not that vehicles got worse, it's that you're just now finally starting to realise how weak vehicles have always been. You probably had a way overinflated opinion of them in 5th, and now that the bubble has burst, you're way overreacting in the other direction.

Vehicles got only a little tougher from 4th to 5th (other than skimmers), and they're about the same from 5th to 6th. It's only your perceptions that have really changed here.

CSM definately feel the pain with the vehicle rules and transports. I started an army with my friend, wanting to focus on close combat, but its very very hard now, combining the various small CC nerfs with the rhino nerfs. Basically, the earliest charge is on T3, but the odds of that are very low if your opponent is somewhat competent (moving back, destroying the rhino, heck even getting first turn). Unless of course he is a full CC army as well.

Yes, rhino's can go 18" in a turn, half the time the rhino's get blown up first turn, or if they do make it to midfield the marines get focused fired during the unit's "taking a break" turn after getting out of the rhino. Also the landraider option for CSM is significantly weaker. It seems like the Huron infiltrate tactic is the only solid one these days.

I think assault CSM would have been fine if they could make their rhino's open-topped or assault vehicle for XX points, but it was not to be. Yes, the army can still work, but it just seems so much easier to spam shooty marines or plague marines.

Ailaros wrote:
And what about all those other units in the game that can't take krak grenades (or for which it would be stupid to)? I used to see plenty of vehicles taken down with frag grenades and even stikkbombs.

Really? Plenty? I find that difficult to believe. Damaged occasionally? Sure. Killed? Um...probably not, at least not without having inflicted severe damage to the vehicle already beforehand and you're just finishing it off.

On average, with a tank moving less than 6", against a vehicle with rear AV10 (95%+ of the vehicles in the game) and say, two guns, you'd need an average of 144 grenade attacks to result in 72 hits, 12 glances, and then 4 Weapon Destroyed/Immobilized results. You'd need an average of 432 attacks against a tank moving 6.00000001" or more.

Not much of a loss there.


Now with HP's, frags don't do anything, but units with S4 base only need 27 attacks on average regardless of speed.

Quite a radical change.

They were a minimal issue in 5th, because unless they did so many glancing hits that you cut through all the guns and immobilization it usually wasn't an issue, at least not any more than basic S4 attacks were. An incredibly minor thing at best in 5E that was usually desperation as units relying on them generally weren't exactly the greatest threats in the first place.

You won't see them if you don't see assault armies. If you've got people running foot assault hordes in 6th, then your opponents have much more serious problems.

Anything running basic troops with either S4+ or that come with krak grenades standard (the majority of armies in the game and the vast majority of armies on the table will routinely be engaging in them still.

They don't need to be assault units or assault armies to have this capability, bog standard troops in the majority of armies in the game will relatively effortlessly destroy tanks in assault even with below average rolls because everything has krak grenades at this point. In fact, you're more likely to kill a tank with a 9 man krak grenade assault than you will with two meltaguns if you're at that range.

Like how a basilisk is more durable than a russ when it can't be shot at (out of LOS), likewise all vehicles are more durable against assault when there's nothing to assault them.

All it takes is a squad of common Troops for most armies to get into your deployment zone, they don't have to be assault specialists to be an incredibly lethal threat to vehicles, they just need Krak grenades which are standard issue for every MEQ army, SoB's, at least one IG troop unit and available to others, and equivalents are generally available for other races or they've got common troops that are quite strong themselves.

Clearly you've never killed anything out of assault range with overwatch before.

That's a red-herring and you know it. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying in the overwhelmingly vast majority of situations it is highly unlikely given that you're hitting on 6's with a very limited number of weapons.

And those same 10 krak grenades would chump the hell out of the tank in 5th ed as well. 6th didn't significantly change the outcome.

As I already showed several pages back, yes it does.

I'll repost the math again because it was apparently missed.

Vaktathi wrote:A 10man squad with krak grenades hits a 6" or less moving vehicle under 5th. 5 hits, 1.66 pens, 0.55 kill results, in other words, in other words, a slightly higher than 50/50 average result to kill with straight average rolling.

Under 6th, you only get 0.37 kill results, but inflict an average of 3.33 hull points in HP damage. This means that, while the chance to kill through a Damage Table result is reduced to about 2/3rd's of what it was, with straight average rolling you'll kill the tank, even with somewhat below average rolling you'll likely still kill it.

This is all just for a tank moving 6" or less, if you moved over 6" in 5E, you'd only get 0.185 Destroyed results (about so 1 in every 5.4 rounds of combat), while under 6th the equation doesn't change based on speed and you're still all but assured an auto-kill.

vehicles of all types have always been faster than infantry. Clearly you've never tried to catch a skimmer in close combat either.

Again, red herring, let's avoid those.

As I stated in my previous post that you quoted, not everything is a Star-engine 36" moving skimmer. A Bike, Cavalry or Jump infantry unit often won't have too much trouble reaching a running tank.

On top of that, usually, at least in a decent sized game on a regular table, after the first turn or two there's enough stuff in enough places that finding a reachable location that's completely out of harms way isn't by any means possible, especially if playing against an opponent that isn't running a Deathwing/Paladin style army, you can't always just zoom somewhere and not be within a possible 18-24" of something.

Sometimes you can, great, you've avoided CC, but running simply isn't an "always there" option and if caught the tanks are simply far too easily killed without any real ability to attempt to mitigate.

Meanwhile, things like jump infantry could always catch them. Once again, 6th ed hasn't added anything new.

Except now they have longer average and max charge distances, and vehicles are far more vulnerable to those assaults, so yes, 6E has changed things.

And this, I think, is what's really going on here. It's not that vehicles got worse, it's that you're just now finally starting to realise how weak vehicles have always been. You probably had a way overinflated opinion of them in 5th, and now that the bubble has burst, you're way overreacting in the other direction.

Lets leave the bad attempts at psycho-analysis out of this shall we?

Vehicles got only a little tougher from 4th to 5th (other than skimmers)

Against shooting they got way tougher, no glancing kills and penetrating kill potential reduced by 33%, along with cover (most usually 4+) became available where before it was just a 50/50 chance to downgrade a pen to a glance, and penetrating hits no longer auto-stunned if they failed to kill. Huge difference there, it's why tracked tanks were practically extinct under 4th for most people and Skimmers were everywhere, and then suddenly tracked tanks were popular in 5th.

Now, they did get easier to kill in CC, true, but the drastic increase in shooting survivability made a whole lot of difference and you could still mitigate a lot of it through movement.

The problem in 6th is that they drastically decreased survivability in both areas.

and they're about the same from 5th to 6th. It's only your perceptions that have really changed here.

No, they are not in any way the same, they require significantly fewer shots to destroy from most weapons as I've already shown in this thread, usually on the order of half, and are even more hideously vulnerable to CC. In no way can they be said to be "about the same" as 5th.

Lets take this example from the last page

Vaktathi Page 3 of this thread wrote: For instance, the chance to kill a Leman Russ with a Lascannon by penetrating and rolling a 5/6 hasn't changed, you still need an average of 18 hits. However, because of HP's, you only need an average of 9 hits to kill through HP's alone, only half what it takes for a penetrating kill. Taken together, since the system is "If X *OR* Y is met" this means you actually need an average of about 7-8 hits before one or the other has been met as a non-mutually exclusive kill system, meaning we've reduced the average number of lascannon shots needed on average to kill that Leman Russ by less than half, almost a third.

Or lets look at an Autocannon vs AV12

Under 5th vs AV12.

1/6 hits penetrate, 1/3 destroy. An average of 18 hits required.

Under 6th vs AV12

1/6 hits penetrate, 1/6 destroy, an average of 36 shots required to kill through an explodes result.
1/3 hits glance or penetrate, 9 hits required to destroy through HP's.

So right off the bat, just through HP's, we need half as many shots. Add in the stackable 1/36 chance to kill and you're talking an even lower average.



As such, there is no way the claim that vehicles are "about the same from 5th to 6th" holds water. 6th edition very intentionally went out if its way to reduce vehicle lifespan and survivability.

No, they're not the same, because they were kinda silly in 5th. I penetrated the same rhino with multiple lascannon hits and just kept getting stunned :(

i dont see how you can say they didnt change much from 5th to 6th. The sheer fact that HP is now in there changed it big time, not to mention the other changes.

Like Martel said, you can pen the crap out of something and it would never die cuz you couldnt roll a boom to save your life. Now, all you need is 2-4 glances/pens regardless of wtf you rolled and its done for.

I think the HP thing is logical, but i wish the Exploded result was only available to AP1-2 weapons. Its so damn annoying to have my 4HP BW get 1shotted cuz something managed to find my AV12 and pen it and got lucky 5+.

The problem with HP's is that now, in terms of the way you kill them, vehicles are now fragile MC's with no saves (except whatever cover can be wrangled up) that can be crippled or suffer ID on most attacks that can hurt them, and can't interact with mission objectives most of the time, instead of a unique unit type.

People seem to always reference Rhino's when expressing their frustration with vehicles in 5E, that vehicle in particular seems to have been much of the problem for most people. I don't recall people bitching about Hellhounds or Wave Serpents or Looted Wagons or Hammerheads for instance. Instead of simply fixing what was wrong with the Rhino, GW instead opted for a blanket reworking of all vehicles, treating them as if they were all 35pt Rhino's when they were, in fact, not.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem with HP's is that now, in terms of the way you kill them, vehicles are now fragile MC's with no saves (except whatever cover can be wrangled up) that can be crippled or suffer ID on most attacks that can hurt them, and can't interact with mission objectives most of the time, instead of a unique unit type.

People seem to always reference Rhino's when expressing their frustration with vehicles in 5E, that vehicle in particular seems to have been much of the problem for most people. I don't recall people bitching about Hellhounds or Wave Serpents or Looted Wagons or Hammerheads for instance. Instead of simply fixing what was wrong with the Rhino, GW instead opted for a blanket reworking of all vehicles, treating them as if they were all 35pt Rhino's when they were, in fact, not.

I had a problem with Kanz too, to be honest.

Wayyyy too survivable in 5th.

Well, also being a 35pt AV11 model, it would seem there is a connection

 Vaktathi wrote:

BryllCream wrote:
Yes way. Tanks got a hell of a lot better. The average mech will get an extra couple of turns of shooting due to not being glance-locked - for free. Turn 2/3 mech is a hell of a lot scarier dakka-wise than it used to be.

This assumes they only inflict a single glancing hit and nothing else. That's it. That is the only time you'll get that. That's a hugely minority case, most weapons being turned on tanks will inflict pens at least as often, if not more, than glances, and if they're doing more than one glance the tanks likely dead or nearly there.

I have no idea what armies you're playing against that you seem to regard glancing hits as an exotic rarity. I mainly play against hybrid armies with mech guard, and it's very noticable how much more dangerous las preds and Vindicators are in 6th.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BryllCream wrote:
Yes way. Tanks got a hell of a lot better. The average mech will get an extra couple of turns of shooting due to not being glance-locked - for free. Turn 2/3 mech is a hell of a lot scarier dakka-wise than it used to be.

This assumes they only inflict a single glancing hit and nothing else. That's it. That is the only time you'll get that. That's a hugely minority case, most weapons being turned on tanks will inflict pens at least as often, if not more, than glances, and if they're doing more than one glance the tanks likely dead or nearly there.

I have no idea what armies you're playing against that you seem to regard glancing hits as an exotic rarity. I mainly play against hybrid armies with mech guard, and it's very noticable how much more dangerous las preds and Vindicators are in 6th.

I'm not saying they're an exotic rarity, I'm saying they are an exception, in most cases, if an opponent is shooting at something, you're usually not just going to have a single glancing hit and nothing else, especially against an opponent capable of concentrating fire.

Does it happen? Sure, of course. Is it par for the course? No. Is it an exception? Yes. The vast majority of the time, vehicles will not simply be taking one glancing hit and nothing else in a turn. If they do, are they better off than in 5th? Yes, they can still operate effectively whereas before they couldn't. But penetrations will still kill or cripple the vehicle and multiple successful armor penetration rolls will of course leave the tank dead, and in most cases you're either just as likely to get a pen if not moreso as compared to a glance.

It is only in the singular case of an otherwise intact (i.e. it hasn't already taken hits) vehicle taking a single glancing hit that you're really going to be better off than under 5th.

If the tank is taking multiple hits, penetrations or has otherwise already lost hull points, (combined each of these conditions are considerably more common than the condition of a single glancing hit and nothing else on an otherwise untouched vehicle), no, 6th is very noticeably worse.

thats why sisters vehicles or tau vehicles dont feel this as badly because their vehicles have a save without terrain or another unit. As do CSM stuff, why i dont know. Even if its just a 5+ thats a major bonus since mojority of vehicles dont have anything at all.

Only some CSM vehicles do, the three Heavy Support walkers and the Flyer (as they're "Daemon Engines"), and aside from the flyer, they're rather mediocre for the most part. None of the "Space Marine"-ey vehicles get the 5+ Invul.

As a whole, I would disagree with you OP. I have had great success with vehicles in 6th Ed. I prefer to think of them as more of a distraction while my infantry do the work.

Do you support your tanks with Infantry? I never let my tanks run around alone without an infantry squad following on a flank or using them as cover. I've watched my opponent move a weapon into range(that should at a minimum disable my vehicle), and fire at my vehicle and have it do little to nothing. My return fire from the vehicle or the infantry that come out of the woodwork from behind the tank usually(not always) discouraged my opponent from doing stuff like that. It depends on your situation. A tank draws a lot of attention, and it will get destroyed eventually. It's just what you do with it while it is on the table. Don't get discouraged; refine your tactics and be smart about maneuvering your vehicles, given your tactical situation. If you play an opponent that you know whats to knock out your tank, do everything you can to make him pay for it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

BryllCream wrote:
Yes way. Tanks got a hell of a lot better. The average mech will get an extra couple of turns of shooting due to not being glance-locked - for free. Turn 2/3 mech is a hell of a lot scarier dakka-wise than it used to be.

This assumes they only inflict a single glancing hit and nothing else. That's it. That is the only time you'll get that. That's a hugely minority case, most weapons being turned on tanks will inflict pens at least as often, if not more, than glances, and if they're doing more than one glance the tanks likely dead or nearly there.

I have no idea what armies you're playing against that you seem to regard glancing hits as an exotic rarity. I mainly play against hybrid armies with mech guard, and it's very noticable how much more dangerous las preds and Vindicators are in 6th.

I'm not saying they're an exotic rarity, I'm saying they are an exception, in most cases, if an opponent is shooting at something, you're usually not just going to have a single glancing hit and nothing else, especially against an opponent capable of concentrating fire.

Does it happen? Sure, of course. Is it par for the course? No. Is it an exception? Yes. The vast majority of the time, vehicles will not simply be taking one glancing hit and nothing else in a turn. If they do, are they better off than in 5th? Yes, they can still operate effectively whereas before they couldn't. But penetrations will still kill or cripple the vehicle and multiple successful armor penetration rolls will of course leave the tank dead, and in most cases you're either just as likely to get a pen if not moreso as compared to a glance.

It is only in the singular case of an otherwise intact (i.e. it hasn't already taken hits) vehicle taking a single glancing hit that you're really going to be better off than under 5th.

If the tank is taking multiple hits, penetrations or has otherwise already lost hull points, (combined each of these conditions are considerably more common than the condition of a single glancing hit and nothing else on an otherwise untouched vehicle), no, 6th is very noticeably worse.

Just because something is not enemic, or even majority, doesn't mean it's insignificant. The very fact that a dozen or so posters in this thread have testified that they're getting far more firepower out of their tanks before they die than they did in 5th - essentially, vehicles in 6th are stronger than they were in 5th. Except in your games where a miss-print in your rulebook has apparently made glancing hits non-existant.

Again, you're claiming I'm saying something that I'm not. I'm not saying that glancing hits are nonexistent. I have no idea where on earth you are getting that from.

I am saying that the singular positive aspect in this regard with 6E is only applicable under a minority condition that against most attacks is only one of many (often much more likely) outcomes, and that in all the other scenario's, 6E leaves you a lot worse off and shown the math to prove it.

What's so hard about that?

I'm not going to argue over what someone on the internet claims their experiences are because I have no way of validating them and in any single game anything can happen.

I will however argue from the position of the actual odds and averages and what one should see typically happen in most cases.

Thus far nobody has actually countered the those or the points I've put forward, only tried to say the problem doesn't exist or re-phrase my arguments into something they aren't.



So again, against penetrating hits, or multiple hits of either kind, or with vehicles that have already suffered any kind of damage, or anything related to close combat and mission objectives, 6E isn't doing much for vehicles.

Only under the singular condition of single glancing hits against intact vehicles are they coming out ahead.

Are you going to offer something that will show that this state is in fact so common as to eclipse the others in its utility and frequency? If not, then saying that vehicles are better off overall under 6E cannot be taken as a true statement as the other conditions (sometimes individually and without a doubt collectively) are more frequent and more punitive.

Solid points Vakathi.

I'm none too pleased with the way that vehicles were handled in 6th, because it has made tanks one of the weaker unit types in the game. I like the concept of Hull Points, but their execution leaves a lot to be desired. Meanwhile, Monstrous Creatures are functionally better in most every way (though to be fair, vehicles usually get bigger guns, at the price of being rather fragile by comparison).

Yes, the more expensive transports got hosed. I'm not talking Chimera, here, its still pretty cheap. The wave serpent, in particular, needs revamped in the new Eldar codex. We won't discuss the hosing the Falcon got.

A couple of people have said that the Land Raider is not worth taking, due to being very expensive, and costing a lot.

I would just like to point out that it is actually viable as a distraction/suicide unit. Fill it up with a meaty CC squad, and speed over to the enemy at 12" per turn. Your enemy will most likely panic ("Oh sh*t, here comes an AV 14, lascannon-toting, terminator transporting tank killer!"). He will fire his heavy weapons at it in the hopes of destroying it, while you move your other forces unhindered.

The terminators or other unit will be well protected, and may make it into CC. The raider may actually survive, and be able to unleash two twin-linked lascannons and the twin heavy bolters.

On top of that, if you're facing orks, they will have a bloody hard time getting through the AV 14, and if they attempt to Pklaw spam you, just put up a wall of cheap things to bog down the ladz (such as cultists, or plague marines).

While you are all arguing about just tanks on their own, you could do with factoring in the other units - 40k isn't just a tank battle.

IMO light vehicles, dark eldar ones in particular, haven't changed all that much, I mean, I think my raiders are actually better off than they were in fifth. I usually saw them shot down turn two from a stray glance, now I can get right up into my enemies face with my troops before the inevitable wrecking/exploding of my transports, I will admit though, the explosions do take out a significant number of troops when they do explode (lost a whole squad of wyches because my raider blew up). Venoms are primarily distractions for me due to the price, and if people don't take the bait, well, anything with toughness has a bad day, I think everyone needs to work in some redundant units this edition, making sure that you have more than one unit to use against specific targets, tanks including.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again, you're claiming I'm saying something that I'm not. I'm not saying that glancing hits are nonexistent. I have no idea where on earth you are getting that from.

I am saying that the singular positive aspect in this regard with 6E is only applicable under a minority condition that against most attacks is only one of many (often much more likely) outcomes, and that in all the other scenario's, 6E leaves you a lot worse off and shown the math to prove it.

You haven't. Don't pretend that you've provided empirical evidence when you've done no such thing. You're not the government.

Okay, I'm reading this thread. What's the exact problem here? Vehicles of any AV can now be killed by an additional mechanism. This makes them easier to kill. No more magic table protection.

A partial trade off is that the tanks are harder to suppress while they live. So this means they will be shooting more compared to 5th while they live, but die sooner. Of course, your opponent still needs payloads to get through whatever AV we are talking about. Sure, you can glance LRs to death with MLs, but if you are shooting MLs at my LR, I'm probably winning the fight.

Vehicles got net weaker in 6th, but they really, really needed it. I'm not sure we needed the assault nerf, but that's a different topic really.